Response from the state defendants

Update: Response from the state defendants | Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire

Update: Response from the state defendants

Posted on | April 15, 2013 | 8 Comments

State defendants filed a reply where they are stating the following:They are not saying that Obama’s selective service certificate is not a forgery, they are saying that according to 5USC 3328 one cannot be appointed to the executive branch if he did not register with the elective service. They are stating that Obama was elected and not appointed, it does no matter, he can forged Selective Service certificate, it’s o’k
IV. PLAINTIFFS DO NOT STATE A CLAIM UNDER 5 U.S.C. § 3328.
Plaintiffs allege that President Obama’s selective service registration is a forgery, and that
he is therefore ineligible to serve as President under 5 U.S.C. § 3328. Dkt. 116 at 16. That
statute states that anyone born after 1959, and who fails to register under the Selective Service
Act, “shall be ineligible for an appointment to a position in an Executive agency.” This allegation
fails to state a claim for two reasons. First, the President was elected, he was not “appointed” to a
position “in an Executive Agency.” Second, the State Defendants have no warrant to enforce
federal laws governing appointments to federal agencies.
Another point that they brought, is that it is o’k to violate CA law in regards to elections, as long as the minimum Federal standards are observed.
In CA the offices of the registrar admitted to falsifying records and entering U.S. or USA for the place of birth and entering the birthdate, where it was missing.
They are saying that since the NVRA does not require the place of birth, the CA law requiring it can be violated.
See, if you can find any cases to that extend.

Laws don't apply to Obama.  He makes them.